“It required,” says he, “the treasure which the Viceroys of Mexico had at their disposal to undertake the cutting at Huehuetoca, the total length of which is 29,585 _met._, with a depth of from 45 to 60 _met._, for a length of 800 _met._, and from 30 to 50 _met._ for 3500 _met._ The expense was 31,000,000.” Farther on, he adds:— “Nowadays, however, in a case of necessity, by displaying the improved appliances at the command of engineering art, it would be possible to effect cuttings of great depth, and to remove large quantities of earth at no extraordinary expense. On the Arles canal, at Bouc, for instance, the plateau of the Lecque was cut through by a trench 2100 _met._ in length, by 40 to 50 _met._ in depth, at the culminating point. The expense was under 4,000,000, and yet the cutting was performed by the old method. In cuttings of magnitude, the soil is now broken by instruments of enormous power, and the earth is removed by means of railways and locomotives. All that has to be done by manual labour is to collect the loose earth and load the waggons. For so important an object as the uniting of two seas, even the impossible might be attempted.” Supposing each labourer to do 1 _m._, 50, on an average, _per diem_, it would only require 8000 labourers for five years to complete the earth-works; and not a year passes without a levy of between 30 and 40,000 men being commanded by the Viceroy, in several provinces at once, for the service of the canals alone. As soon as the project of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Suez is ascertained to be useful and advantageous, no difficulties of execution, however great they may be (and we have proved them trifling), will be considered obstacles to its being carried out. It would appear at first sight superfluous to demonstrate the utility of such an undertaking, for what especially strikes the imagination, is the magnitude of the results promised by the Canal, and the reiterated efforts made at several epochs, even in times of ignorance, to open this communication between the two Seas. But since the publication of M. Lepère’s memorial, so many objections have been brought forward and so many doubts raised, that public opinion is undecided, and it becomes necessary to re-establish the question in all its integrity. We will therefore examine the principal objections raised against the direct communication between the two Seas. It has been said that the navigation of the Red Sea is so dangerous, and that the monsoons cause such delays, that even if the Canal were established and freely traversed by ships, commerce would not follow that route, which would in fact, from these peculiar circumstances, be the longest and most perilous.